DOT and EPA Announce New Gas Mileage Regulations

[Iching]

This is a very good read. It is from Financial Times.

Is US economic growth over? Faltering innovation confronts the six headwinds

http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2012...ROWTH-OVER-FALTERING-INNOVATION-CONFRONTS.pdf

I was not here when Clinton was a presdinet but I swear it was him who wanted the poor to own a house, got rid of Glass–Steagall Act and started all the outsourcing?

 

[Mohonri]

For all you libertarians bleat about freedom, you sure don't seem to understand the concept. People weren't forced to work in factories, it's not like they HAD to work. I mean, they were perfectly FREE to not work and let their families starve, right? ...

So what were all these families doing before the industrial revolution? My point stands that the factory jobs were better than what they were doing before. These people didn't suddenly materialize when the factories were built. They were making a living doing something else, and decided to work in the factories instead.

You're also ignoring the consumer benefits of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution drastically lowered the cost of production and transportation of goods. That means lower prices for consumers, and more money left over for other things.

Enough sarcasm. I'm going to be serious here. It's a damn good thing America finally removed head from ass and stepped in to regulate these things. You are totally kidding yourself if you think we as a nation would be better off today if we hadn't done something about the huge labor abuses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It's a perfect example of your utter delusion and blind faith that you think that the Industrial Revolution portrays a positive example of free market capitalism at work.

Would you also consider the workers in Foxconn's factories to be abused? Because people are lining up out the door to apply for jobs there.

"Freedom" isn't just a measure of your rights with respect to your government. If you have no choice but to work or starve, that's not freedom. If one serious illness is all that stands between you and financial destitution, that's not freedom. An economic system and infrastructure that allows the rich to hoard money and power while letting the vast majority of society fight and beg for the scraps is not freedom. And it's not what the founding fathers ever intended for America.

It would appear, then, that you and I have a different definition of freedom. You define freedom as not having to worry about what might happen in one's life, i.e. insurance. I define freedom as the ability to succeed (or fail), to enjoy the benefits of my labor, and to choose for myself how much I am responsible for my neighbor's well-being.

I actually didn't bother to look up figures. Those numbers were picked as examples only.

Instead use these as examples. Our 90s average rate of 4%, compared to a completely randomly picked 3% if we decided to fund healthcare, and I don't even think the impact would be that huge.

Ok, so let's go with a "4% growth is the target" number. We were making that in the mid 90's and mid 2000's. Now we have a whole heap of additional regulation from our current administration, plus a whole pile that has been enacted, but not even written yet--that's the bulk of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. That pushes our growth rate down below 4% in the best case. And then, again, according to your logic, we're overregulated.

So its not an important measure, that in the U.S., the extremely wealthy (or those lucky enough to be on a government health plan) can get fantastic healthcare, but everyone else get so-so coverage, and pays through the nose for it, while the poor have healthcare on the level of a third world nation?

Wrong again. 85-90% of the population had health insurance before PPACA, with *very* high satisfaction ratings (>85%, as I recall). As I said before, a good chunk of the remainder are illegal immigrants, plus a few percent chose not to have any insurance, or were self-insured. The number who did not have insurance and could not afford it is actually quite small--5-8% or so. The poor have health care on the level of a 3rd-world country? Where on earth do you live?

According to article 25 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the U.S. voted ratification) access to healthcare is a universal human right. There are many people in our private system which currently are not able to access healthcare, either due to their financial circumstances or something else. We are technically human rights violators with this system...

For quite some time, it has been law that hospitals must provide emergency health care, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. "Unable to access" is certainly not the case.

We can argue about the *cost* of healthcare in the US compared with other countries, but that's a whole other ball of wax and not pertinent to this discussion (other than the fact that cost of healthcare is one of the metrics the WHO uses to rank quality of health care systems).

...
We have some of the best research specialists in the world here, but at the same time we have a shortage of family medicine / primary care physicians.

And more regulation is going to help this how?

The "british people have bad teeth" thing is a bit of a stereotype, you know?

It is a stereotype, yes. I've known quite a few people from the UK, and from my experience, there's a lot of truth to it.

I can tell you. I have experienced both style of systems.

Growing up in Sweden, whenever we had to go to the doctor there was a copay to be seen, and that was it, everything was taken care of. There were no long lines or people being turned down for care as the U.S. misinformation would have you believe. They also had every bit as advanced equipment and knowledgeable physicians as we do here.

There were never any surprise bills after seeing the doctor (lab fees, fees for this, fees for that, that seem to come raining into my mailbox for six months after visiting the doctor)

...<story about poor experience with insurer>...

The healthcare system in the U.S. really is the worst in the industrialized world, it is unethical, immoral and has poor outcomes, unless you happen to be one of the lucky few...

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. What you went through, as bad as it was, is not typical. Sure, we hear anecdotes here and there, but not only has it worked, it has spawned some of the greatest medical advances the world has ever seen. Why? Because there's a profit motive.

Keynsian Economics works. It has been proven empirically.

The free market concepts of the Austrian School on the other hand reject empiricism, and are just fanciful theory that have never been proven. Many of which fail any scientific testing all together.

In the 1990's under Clinton we almost completely eliminated the national debt. People were actually worried what would happen to the economic system, seeing how important U.S. treasury bonds are in establishing the risk free rate for investment calculations.

...

But then George W. Bush and the neocons came along and enacted the biggest unfunded tax cut in history for the wealthy

Neither Keynesian nor Austrian school economics have been tried out very well. Keynesian because politicians can't bring themselves to actually cut spending, and Austrian because politicians feel like more government is the answer.

The elimination of the deficit under Clinton was a shell game. They achieved the reduction in deficit by including Social Security and Medicare, which were running a surplus at the time.

Funny thing about the Bush tax cuts--they applied to everyone, rich and poor. In fact, it was a bigger cut for the poor (from 10% to 5%) than for the rich (if you're looking at capital gains, 25% down to 15%). And after they took effect, income tax revenues started climbing. Compare with the current recession.

1873, 1893, 1929 and 2007 are a few.

2007 doesn't quite qualify the same way, as markets were more reigned in than in the first three instances, but its no coincidence that the financial crisis followed massive deregulation during the Bush years allowing for sketchier and sketchier deals, finally resulting in collapse.

You're forgetting 1987, when the stock market lost 22% in one day, despite Glass-Steagal, which was supposed to prevent just such a thing. I don't know much about the 1873 and 1893 events, but I do know a few things about 2007. I know that banks made loans to people who had little prospect for actually paying, that speculation drove housing costs up, and that the bubble eventually burst. I also know that the recovery would have happened much quicker had the government just let the bubble burst and let the market adjust. But no, we get all sorts of government programs to help delinquent home"owners" refinance, that write down the amount of the loan, that attempt to keep house prices from falling, and in the process make the recovery that much slower.

Not to mention that wonderful Fracking that's happening all over the place, making peoples drinking water flammable...

There has been, to my knowledge, exactly one case where fracking has been shown to contaminate ground water. It was in Montana, in a unique situation where the wells were shallow and the geology amenable to it. All those other cases you hear about the flammable water? I hate to burst your bubble, but from what I've heard, the water was like that before the fracking started.

 

[Mechasheeba]

2025 is a bit late for such a weak measure. Greenland will be melted by then, and we'll all be migrating north lol

Migrate towards the flood?

 

[wtourist]

Diesel has its own problems and comes from the same stocks as gasoline, not as compatibile with alcohol either (not that I like alcohol gasoline mixes).

Basically fuel priices are likely to "popularize" high mileage vehicles.

 

[c3141hf]

For all you libertarians bleat about freedom, you sure don't seem to understand the concept. People weren't forced to work in factories, it's not like they HAD to work. I mean, they were perfectly FREE to not work and let their families starve, right? They totally could have renegotiated with their employers for better hours, better wages, and safer work environments. And who can blame the good, saintly factory owners for hiring kids? I mean, that's between them and the kid's families, right? It wasn't like the previously mentioned low wages left families able to afford life without forcing children to work in dangerous, dirty factories instead of going to school and building foundations for real careers later in their lives, right? As long as it's not the government treating people like slaves, they're free!

Enough sarcasm. I'm going to be serious here. It's a damn good thing America finally removed head from ass and stepped in to regulate these things. You are totally kidding yourself if you think we as a nation would be better off today if we hadn't done something about the huge labor abuses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It's a perfect example of your utter delusion and blind faith that you think that the Industrial Revolution portrays a positive example of free market capitalism at work.

"Freedom" isn't just a measure of your rights with respect to your government. If you have no choice but to work or starve, that's not freedom. If one serious illness is all that stands between you and financial destitution, that's not freedom. An economic system and infrastructure that allows the rich to hoard money and power while letting the vast majority of society fight and beg for the scraps is not freedom. And it's not what the founding fathers ever intended for America.

Make no mistake, the wealthy can only keep the poor distracted with their "bread and circuses" for so long. It's better in the long run - for everyone - if we abandon dogmatic views of free market capitalism and focus on policies that promote the creation and empowerment of a STRONG middle class.

And just who are you to determine what constitutes being rich and what is not? Who are you to make the determination that someone has too much money? By what right do you claim to commit armed robbery simply because someone has more money than you do? Your argument reeks more of envy than anything else.

They totally could have renegotiated with their employers for better hours, better wages, and safer work environments.

That's what they did. The original unions operated and were successful at improving working conditions and pay without the "labor laws" that we have today. In fact, in most cases, the government worked against the unions due to crony capitalism (which is *not* free market capitalism in any sense of the word) and the companies bribing the government.

In fact, if you knew anything about libertarianism, you would know that, in fact, things like unions are preferred over a state/government for resolving these kinds of issues.

If you have no choice but to work or starve, that's not freedom.

Yes, shockingly, people have to work in order to make money. If you do not wish to work a job, then I suggest growing your own food. Find a piece of unclaimed land and homestead it, build yourself a house and grow your own food.

To state that someone should be entitled to anything simply because they don't "want" to work is absurd.

An economic system and infrastructure that allows the rich to hoard money and power while letting the vast majority of society fight and beg for the scraps is not freedom.

This is not free market capitalism, this is crony capitalism and it is enabled by the presence of a state. Government and corruption are inseparable and the larger the government is, the more areas there are to corrupt.